gunsmoke on 21/2/2009 at 15:46

---

No shit, what are you writing an article or creating a password? :p

june gloom on 21/2/2009 at 20:15

---

Hardcore security wonks?

EvaUnit02 on 23/2/2009 at 16:43

---

Wow, who would've thought that (http://forums.battle.net/thread.html;jsessionid=DEF13A42512698FCAC63D930F1BD43BF.app27_03?topicId=14318637240&postId=143173602287&sid=3000) stupid people were so predictable?

(http://forums.battle.net/thread.html;jsessionid=B47F2C28BF56004A7E66C5DCF20764D7.app23_07?topicId=14697502272&sid=3000) This one might be sarcastic though, it's hard to tell.

Matthew on 23/2/2009 at 16:49

---

18 is a result of button-mashing in Notepad and then cut 'n' pasting the result into Firefox. I'm not entirely masochistic.

Edit: unfortunately my specs are slightly higher than the recommended ones so I cannot comment on that.

aguywhoplaysthief on 24/2/2009 at 08:49

---

Let's actually talk about the game here, and not GFW.

This is by far the biggest let down since DX2.

The first major problem is that this isn't a real-time strategy game - there is no strategy. It's an RTT game, and it's done in such a way that it is far too simplistic for any normal PC RTS gamer to get any in-depth satisfaction from. If you loved Dawn of War (my favorite RTS of all time), and loved Company of Heros (greatest RTS in the most boring setting of all time), then you are pretty much gauranteed not to like this game. If, however, you don't have good taste, and thought World in Conflict was a a brilliant "strategy game", then you will like this. A lot.

My second gripe is this: If you're going to create a sequel to a game, it should be at least somewhat similiar to the first one. People who buy a sequel to a game want two things A) more of the same, and B) but better. That's why Gears of War 2, Halo 2 + 3, and GTA IV sold a bazillion copies. They took the original, award-winning formula and made it better, while not alienating the people who bought the series.

Relic didn't do this. It took me a while to figure out what they were thinking, and it finally dawned on me - this game is designed so that it can be ported to a 360. Like the average console game, you can't save your game during a campaign map, or in a skirmish with AI - not that this really matters because the games are only just long enough so that a text messaging 12-year-old in pre-worn pants wouldn't get bored. The maps are smaller so you don't need to click on a mini-map. The units move more slowly so they are easier for Wii Bowling players to keep track of. They limit the number of units so they are easier to select with the automatically determined unit hotkey numbers. Base building is gone so that fat-fingered thumbstick jockeys don't have to fight the terrain while placing buildings.

The third problem with the design of this game is WoW (read, designed so a 16-year-old can play it with their girlfriend). They have unit/squad level ups, and different armor and weapon types when you get more XP. They've taken out all the interesting units (and with it all the strategy in unit selection), and given each unit WoW-like powers with cooldowns and mana, with tiny little Guild Wars-style unreadable icons for you to click. They had this in DoW and CoH, but they've gone off the deep end this time.

Let me be clear here - this is all in the SKIRMISH MODE, and not just the campaign. The review sites aren't pointing this out nearly enough. You're fighting, and "oh look, my scout has leveled up! Let's sit here during the battle and figure out if I want the sniper rifle, or the flamethrower upgrade!".

Lame.

Those are the big things, but the little things really add up as well: The map selection is woeful (you only get 8 or so maps, of which only 2 are 1v1 maps), the art isn't very good (the environments are uninspiring, the units are too shiny, and the texel density is all over the map), the voice acting and script isn't as good as the first, the UI looks as if it was designed by Fisher-Price, and the difficulty levels are not balanced properly.

These crits don't even cover the campaign, which is even worse. Maybe it gets better after mission 5, but I doubt it. Here's how it the missions tend to run:

Place pre-loaded units behind cover. Send in scout to kite enemies into your defenses. Kill enemies. Run in with marines, and throw grenade at tower. Grab loot. Next section. Repeat. End level. Level up screen. Load next mission. It really is a fantastic example of what is wrong with modern game design - it's made to be played by the lowest common denominator.

I was so excited about this game. I LOVED Dawn of War, and wanted this to be brilliant, and with the track record that Relic had, I didn't think that it was possible for them to fuck it up. They really did. If you liked World in Conflict, but thought it was too fast paced, then you will probably like this game. But if you love strategy games, and are expecting one, look elsewhere. Save your money, and pray that Empire: Total War lives up to the hype. Or just play the old one - it's still fantastic.